The Enemy of Radical Feminism is Not Men

I never thought much of those who subscribe to the label of “radical feminist,” but I never saw that movement as much of a big deal either. However, a recent catalyst in my life made me realize how wrong I was.

Men, Brainwashed with Feminism?

This catalyst came in two parts: a conversation and a picture book.  The picture book actually came first, but it was the conversation that made me understand just how important the book was.  It was just an ordinary discussion about today’s secular colleges and the effect of emasculation that society reaps from them.  The other person said something to the effect that their students because completely indoctrinated in liberal feminism.

My immediate, not thought out reaction, was, “Well, what about the men?” as the idea of men so weak to actually decide that they were the inferior gender just because their women professors told them so seemed rather ridiculous.

My companion answered that “They indoctrinate them, too!”  So I thought a little about it.  And, pretty quickly… the explanation for this apparent paradox hit me like a cannonball.  The liberal feminists’ attack is not on men qua men at all!  Far from it, since they are actually able to turn men into allies.  The object of their animosity is, rather, the masculine psyche. 

A Father’s Unkindness

Now, my reader, you may be wondering how I arrived at this conclusion or even what I mean by “the masculine psyche.”  I will begin by explaining how the picture book fit in.  It was called The Sissy Duckling, about a stereotypically “sissy” boy duck, who finds himself bullied by the “macho” ducklings, and even his own father, about his inclination toward feminine activities.  The duckling’s mother, on the other hand, was supportive and praised his “differential” qualities from the beginning.  At one point, the duckling even makes the mistake of telling the bullies how she encouraged him, and then predictably finds himself bullied worse for it.  So, this book (which was, as one might guess, written by a gay man) portrays the male parent as unfeeling and callous, and the woman as sweet and kind.

One could say that in this case, the father was just exhibiting egotism, wanting his son to be “just like him,” a scenario that, with some fathers, could be rather realistic.  Even disregarding that, there’s also the point that “It’s just a children’s story.  Why make a big deal out of it?”  The hypothesis about the father duck might make sense solely within the context of the story, and the one about the author is certainly more of an “easygoing” approach.

Conversely, as the author makes no secret of the fact that he is a gay rights activist, I personally think he intended to paint a larger picture than that (using his book as a form of “activism”).  However, what I found most curious about the book was less any meanings in the overall portrayal of the father, and more the fact that the boy’s only option was to have recourse to his mother.  I could picture a boy participating in activities stereotypically viewed as “girly” (actually, my own brother used to be an Irish dancer), but the alienation from the father was less easily explained, and seemed unnecessary.

A Modern-Day Need for Chivalric Knights

Before I explain that, though, I will proceed to the other question I raised, the meaning of “the masculine psyche.”  By this I mean a general term for values that are traditionally safeguarded by men.  Specifically, men have often been thought of as being fighters for that in which they believe, upholders of truth and justice.  A modern-day example might be superheroes like Batman and Superman, but this goes much farther back, to the chivalric code of medieval times.  Back then, men were thought of as protectors and defenders of what was precious, to include their homes and families.  But, might it not also be true that those knights and princes of long ago stood for something arguably even more valuable, but less tangible?  They had true masculinity, and that strength which they displayed was a treasure in and of itself.  They knew certain things in life were worth a fight, and that they themselves were responsible for the fighting.  They shielded society, not only from conspicuous dangers, like bandits, but from falling apart of its own accord.  Back then, women did not serve in forms of government.  (I have no interest in debating whether or not this was a legitimate idea; I only believe it was true.)  Thus, town councils given the weighty task of performing the most vital societal functions would be made up of men.

One good example of such a function would be the fictional condemnation of Hester Prynne in The Scarlet Letter.  While I in no way believe that adulterers should be stoned or even made to wear discriminating clothing, I do believe that the comparison between the book and modern times is marked.  The fact that the book characters took it into their own hands to punish a woman’s personal sin at all is extreme, uncalled for, and wrong, but the basic intention behind the punishment was an understandable kind of good.

They punished the adulteress because they knew that adultery was wrong, and thus this woman “had sinned against God, if not her husband as well.”  Their viewpoint, while expressed to an inappropriate extent, was (like mine) that such transgressions should not be happily encouraged in their community.  While societies such as this went too far in the direction of castigation, the U.S. today is the reverse of this—actually choosing to laud sexual deviance such as homosexuality or transgenderism.

What We Have Become

The question left yet unanswered by this comparison is, “What changed?”  To try to trace this entire sequence in all its detail would probably fill at least a whole book, but there is one point I find most vital.  In the picture book, as I already mentioned, the father was shown as the “mean, confused” parent, and the mother “good.”  This less-than-disguised message from a children’s story gave me the answer.

The liberal feminists have, directly or indirectly, injected specific feminine traits into all of society in order to make it conform to their agenda.  This is because it was a true sense of justice that is also a masculine trait which once shielded the world from the horrors of immorality now rampant today.  It is that justice that says “We must conform to what is good and true,” thus prohibiting atrocities such as the killing of children in their mother’s wombs.

Conversely, it is a traditionally feminine value (a distortion of mercy) that says “You mustn’t punish this, because the circumstances have changed it so it’s not bad.  After all, abortion can be quite necessary if the woman was raped…”  The feminists’ strongest weapon was actually a disguised gentleness, beginning with “This rule is so harsh; you must make an exception for this… and this… and this… and this…” until they changed the evil, such abortion, into no longer an exception, but the rule for all who wanted it.  Thus the feminists could begin arguing from a new platform, but more strongly, because they already won once.  Bit by bit did they and their predecessors knock down the strength of absolute truth in this way.  This sequence may also pertain to why liberalism and radical feminism seem to be so closely related—because liberalism hinges so closely on this false, feminist “mercy.”

As an intriguing contrast to my hypothesis, I read an essay a couple of months ago by one of the most radical feminists around (a former chairwoman of NOW) against surrogacy.  I fully agreed with her on this issue (though it’s also the only thing on which we could agree).  However, there’s a twist here: I believe, unlike her, however anti-surrogacy she personally is, that surrogacy has nonetheless actually been caused by the feminism to which she so strongly subscribes.  And how might this be possible?  Again, there are many reasons, but one easily explainable example is same-sex marriage, for which the same author advocates, for as I read in a conservative article “marriage equality” invariably leads to “family equality.”

Now the false mercy has created an evil so great that even those who champion many other evils want to fight it!

Whether I Am a Mysogynist

By now I may be sounding rather sexist, making the feminine quality (mercy) seem only bad but the masculine quality (justice) “good.”  However, this is not my intent.  Instead of mercy itself, I intend to condemn only the false mercy of the radicals, which has twisted our once Christian society into a civilization where a confused man is praised for thinking he’s a woman over a girl who fulfilled her athletic dream even as cancer killed her.  But again, the radicals’ mercy is not true mercy, but a twisted form, just as the society that has sprung up around it.

As a woman, I will be the first to say that women can be just and men merciful, and that either trait can certainly be exercised by anyone in a good way.  However, I will also say that I think God created men as a whole to have a stronger inclination toward justice, and women toward mercy, but that does not specifically limit anyone of either gender.  Nor am I saying that everyone should always choose justice over mercy.  Aquinas said that “Mercy without justice is the mother of dissolution; justice without mercy is cruelty.”   As was in God’s plan from the beginning of time, both are necessary, not just one.  Finally, there’s nothing wrong with joyfully displaying true femininity, which will always be greater than the lies of the feminists.

Bringing Real Men Back

The final question is how society shall be reclaimed.  The short answer is this: we need MEN again!  Real men.  The longer answer calls for men who, rather than fearing repercussions, will stand up and fight for the values that the feminists weakened, as men should.  We ladies can fight too, in several different ways.  In no particular order, we can reclaim “our” value of true mercy, e.g. instead of having “mercy” on a pregnant woman by letting her kill her baby, explain to her that allowing the baby to live helps not just the baby, but the mother as well (protecting her from a higher risk of cancer, etc.).

Second, we can once again stand beside men, rather than above them.  Rather than saying “We’re better anyway, and you’ve oppressed us for so long!” as the radicals do, we may step back and say “You need us and we need you.”  In other words, we must also fight.  Though we, like the men, can and should speak out boldly against this injustice from a real woman’s perspective, we can and ought to take a stand in quieter ways as well, such as prayer.  Again, not that the gentlemen cannot also aid in quiet ways, but it is men who are unashamed to be masculine and act on it that the U.S., and all the world, need most desperately.

My friends—men and women alike—be not afraid!  God gave us this world—now let us fight for it!